We now move on to an evidence session on the Scottish Government’s draft budget 2016-17. We previously agreed to focus our scrutiny of the budget on three areas of spend: policing, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Before the budget document was published, we issued a call for views and took evidence on the financial planning that was being undertaken in those areas to inform today’s session.
I welcome to the meeting, and wish a happy new year to, Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and Scottish Government officials Neil Rennick, director of the justice directorate, Don McGillivray, deputy director of the safer communities directorate, and John Nicholson, from the safer communities directorate.
Cabinet secretary, do you wish to make an opening statement?
Only to wish the committee a very happy new year.
Thank you.
To structure the discussion, I propose that we split it into three areas—first policing, then the Fire and Rescue Service, and then the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
I invite members’ questions on the police budget.
Happy new year, cabinet secretary.
The draft budget for 2016-17 seeks to maintain, in real terms, the current level of resource funding for the Scottish Police Authority. How much additional funding does that actually involve?
You are correct in saying that. The increase in funding for Police Scotland in the 2016-17 budget that that approach will provide is just over £17 million of additional resource.
Does the additional funding for the SPA indicate a departure from the previous need to find efficiency savings? Will the service still be charged with trying to maintain services and look at how it can save, or is it off the hook?
It is fair to say that Police Scotland and the SPA have already achieved significant recurring savings over the last two and a half years, but there is a requirement to make further savings and efficiencies. The increase in funding is not a departure from our recognition of the need to make sure that the SPA and Police Scotland continue to seek and achieve those savings effectively, but it provides them with a level of resourcing that I believe will assist them to take forward the important work that they undertake in a range of areas. For example, it will assist them to meet some of the additional challenges that they face around counterterrorism.
The requirement for Police Scotland and the SPA to continue to identify efficiencies and savings remains, and we will continue to work with them to ensure that that is progressed.
Is there an expectation that there will still be efficiency savings? We have heard that the pips are beginning to squeak, as they say, but is there an expectation from the Government that those savings can be achieved?
You have heard in evidence already that there is still scope for efficiencies to be found. There is no doubt that, when you bring together eight different forces, there will be significant areas of overlap in where efficiencies can be gained, and I do not believe that they have all been realised yet. There are still areas where bureaucracy could be alleviated and where further gains can be made and maintained.
Part of the purpose behind the Deputy First Minister agreeing to further provision in relation to the reform budget, which is being provided in this budget, is to assist Police Scotland in taking forward some of the investment that is necessary to support it and the SPA in achieving some of those efficiencies.
I am of the view that of course efficiencies can still be achieved. We need to support and assist Police Scotland and the SPA in doing that, whether through information and communication technology or in areas around procurement, where they have already achieved significant efficiencies but where further gains could be achieved, for example through working in collaboration with other public sector organisations in relation to how they purchase particular things and achieve procurement arrangements.
Those are areas where there is still significant scope for efficiencies to be made, and there is a clear desire on the part of the SPA and Police Scotland to make sure that they continue to focus and bear down on those matters to maximise the savings that can be achieved and to ensure that they are achieved.
It is strange that our budgets are under pressure, yet there is this difficulty with VAT. As we are constrained by time, maybe you could answer in relation to both services. What has the Scottish Government been doing to resolve the situation whereby VAT is paid by fire and police services in Scotland, but not by those south of the border?
I have made it very clear to the committee before that it is entirely unacceptable that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are the only two services in the United Kingdom—in policing or in fire and rescue services—that have to pay VAT. I know that the committee has expressed concerns about that in the past. We have continued to make representations to the UK Government on the matter, but we have been unable to make any further progress on it yet.
10:15VAT costs Police Scotland something in the region of £25 million a year and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service around £10 million a year. Of course, some would argue that we were warned about that before the reforms took place, and I do not deny that some people gave those warnings. If neither of the organisations qualifies for VAT exemption because we have moved to national services, I do not understand why the National Crime Agency, which is a UK agency, gets VAT exemption, or why academy schools in England were allowed VAT exemption, even though they are centrally funded. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service get VAT exemption, yet they are nationally funded organisations.
If there is political will for VAT exemption to happen, it is very clear that it can happen. It is entirely unacceptable that in Scotland we continue to spend in the region of £35 million a year on VAT to Her Majesty’s Treasury, when it could change that at the stroke of a pen. That money could be better invested in public services here in Scotland, including in the Fire and Rescue Service.
Can the Scottish Government do anything to put the heat on the matter and move it further up the agenda? It seems that we only hear about the issue in discussions such as this—we do not hear much about it at any other time.
We have raised the issue with the UK Government consistently, at every opportunity that we have. I will give you an example. We are having to replace the radio systems that are used by our emergency services, including the police, the fire service and the ambulance service. Over the course of its lifetime, that contract, which we are negotiating and working on with the Home Office, will probably cost us in excess of £400 million. The reality is that we are the only part of the UK sitting around the table that will have to pay VAT on that contract. Every other part of the UK that is joining in on that programme will not pay VAT on it. We are taking every opportunity to highlight the iniquity of the situation in which we find ourselves: two of our key public services—emergency services—have to pay VAT in a way that no other similar service in another part of the UK has to do. When it comes to working on a pan-UK basis on new investments, we are the only body at the negotiating table that has to pick up the attached VAT costs.
The Finance Committee flagged up that problem when the legislation went through, so it was known about. At that stage, Northern Ireland had been exempted by the VAT legislation that went through. Obviously, the UK Government has exempted a number of organisations since then. Has it given you any indication why it has taken a rather intransigent position on Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, when it has been prepared to change the rules for others?
To a large extent, no. You are correct to say that it has chosen to give other bodies—such as London Legacy, which is a national organisation—VAT exemptions.
Sadly, the decision appears to be politically motivated. That is entirely unacceptable and we will continue to make representations to the UK Government on the matter at every opportunity. To date we have not made any further progress with the UK Government, despite our repeated calls to it to address the matter. It has said that, because the services are nationally funded bodies, they no longer qualify for VAT exemption, but there has been no explanation beyond that.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I declare an interest as a recipient of a police pension, since police pensions feature in the budget.
I am trying to understand the relationship between two statements that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy made on 16 December. One of them is:
“I am pleased to confirm today that we will provide real-terms protection to the front-line policing resource budget next year and, if we are re-elected in May, for every year of the next Parliament, which is a boost of £100 million over that period.”
The second statement is:
“I am announcing further support today. Instead of removing the reform budget as Parliament intended, in order to consolidate the reforms and to support the work of the police, I am committing a further £55 million next year to the important task of community safety.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2015; c 39.]
Will you talk about the relationship between those two statements? In particular, if your Government is re-elected, will an additional £20 million be injected straight away in May?
Do you mean in May 2016?
Yes.
The real-terms increase is £17 million.
What is the relationship between the statement about
“a boost of £100 million”
in the event that you are re-elected and the announcement of
“committing a further £55 million next year to the important task of community safety”?—[Official Report, 16 December 2015; c 39.]
The real-terms increase in the resource budget over the five-year period is projected to accumulate to just over £100 million.
What does that mean for 2016-17?
That is the £17 million to which I referred in my response to Gil Paterson.
Is that part of the £55 million?
No. There are two separate things: the police central Government budget, which is the £55 million to which you referred and is the continuation of the reform budget, and the real-terms increase in Police Scotland’s resource budget. If we give real-terms protection, the real-terms increase in the resource budget for Police Scotland over the five-year period will be just over £100 million. In the 2016-17 budget, that will amount to just over £17 million. The £55 million of central Government reform budget is separate from and in addition to that.
What additional sum will be provided in the event of your party being re-elected in May? I am not campaigning for you, but are you saying that the police can look forward to a windfall of—what is five into £100 million—£20 million extra?
There is £17 million of additional money in 2016-17, and the way in which real-terms protection operates means that the figure will start to increase in further years of the five-year period. Over that period, that will accumulate to around £100 million of additional resource.
So the statement on the £100 million does not need the qualifier “if we are re-elected”, because it is there anyway.
This is a one-year budget, which provides £17 million. As the Deputy First Minister set out, we are committed to maintaining that in future budgets. A change of Government could result in a change of budget approach.
So the figure is £17 million, then.
It is £17 million because this is a one-year budget. We have made a commitment that, if we are re-elected, the figures will accumulate to more than £100 million over the five years.
We will deal with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service separately, but I understand that it will be able to retain capital receipts from property disposals. Is that the case for the police?
Yes.
What will the police be able to use that money for?
It will be for them to decide whether they want to invest it in capital projects or other projects that they are undertaking.
Could they use it for revenue purposes?
No—it would be capital. It is not possible to put capital into revenue.
I was just checking that.
Is there contingency to deal with the ICT project, which is a major capital project, and with i6?
Contingency to deal with what?
Any difficulties that may arise with the projects.
Do you mean in the way of an overspend or a change in the costs?
I mean contractual difficulties.
The police have a contractual agreement in place to undertake i6 with the company that is responsible for developing the project. If any additional cost was associated with that, it would be a matter for Police Scotland and the SPA to work out within their budgets. They have not highlighted anything in relation to the contract that they have in place. However, if they wanted to use some of the capital receipts that they receive during the year to undertake other work on ICT infrastructure capital investment, they could do that if they thought that it was necessary.
Would that include use for i6?
Technically, yes, if that was necessary, but I am not aware of any indication that it needs additional investment at this stage.
Happy new year to you, cabinet secretary. I will build on a couple of the themes that Gil Paterson and John Finnie talked about in relation to the budget. Since we took evidence on the budget on 1 December, Audit Scotland has produced “The 2014/15 audit of the Scottish Police Authority”. Paragraph 20 of that report refers to the fact that
“the SPA forecasted an overspend of £25.3 million against its 2015/16 revenue budget.”
The report comments on the First Minister’s statement about a real-terms increase in the police revenue budget, and it suggests that,
“If a one per cent real terms budget increase is assumed for every year from 2016/17 to 2020/21, we estimate that there could still be a cumulative funding gap of over £80 million by 2018/19 unless additional savings are made”.
I understand that the report was prepared before the Deputy First Minister made his budget statement. Will you comment on that paragraph and ways in which it might not tell the full story?
You are correct that the Audit Scotland report was published prior to our draft budget being published.
The report was prepared prior to that.
I am sorry—it was prepared prior to that.
Audit Scotland made a number of assumptions in the report that—obviously—did not take account of some measures that we published in the draft budget. For example, Audit Scotland’s projected budget figure assumed that no reform funding would be allocated to the SPA in any year. In fact, there is the reform budget that I referred to—the additional £55 million that has been allocated as part of the draft budget.
The Audit Scotland net expenditure figure was based on a starting assumption of an overspend of £22.3 million at the end of the current financial year. In fact, we understand that the end-of-year overspend will be significantly lower than that as a result of the recovery plan that the SPA and Police Scotland have put in place.
The Audit Scotland budget gap figures are based in part on the assumption that no further efficiency savings will be achieved in future years. In fact, some of the current year’s savings have been delayed until next year. As I mentioned, the reform budget is also intended to assist Police Scotland in achieving some of the changes that it needs to make to achieve further savings.
Audit Scotland’s projections were compiled in advance of the Scottish Government’s draft budget, which was published before the Christmas recess. As the First Minister has outlined, we have given the commitment, if re-elected, to maintain a real-terms increase in Police Scotland’s budget in future years.
I will move on to the annual report for 2014-15 of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland, which was also published after we conducted our budget session on 1 December. It touches on the absence of a financial strategy on the part of the SPA. Mr Penman’s report states:
“While the current commitment to maintaining an additional 1,000 officers is welcomed and has strengthened policing across Scotland, it can only remain effective and efficient whilst these officers continue to perform operational policing roles. In the absence of a long term vision of policing, a wider workforce strategy and a clear financial strategy, there is a real risk that financial savings will continue to focus primarily on reducing police staff.”
Will you comment on that paragraph and in particular on the absence of a financial strategy on the part of the SPA?
10:30
I will rewind to the start. The outline business case for police reform was developed and published in 2011. It was very detailed—it was arguably one of the most detailed for a major area of public sector reform—and it set out a range of options for progressing policing reform. Any further financial strategy or financial business case had to be taken forward by Police Scotland and the SPA, once established. If I recall correctly, the committee received evidence from the former chief constable, Stephen House, that that work could be taken forward only once the organisations had been established.
The early work that was undertaken by Police Scotland and the SPA concerned their corporate strategy, which set out the areas that they would address over the three-year period, including the financial aspect, personnel and a range of other areas. They have taken that work forward over the past couple of years and are now in a position where, since we have published our draft budget, they can set out their financial strategy for the forthcoming financial year and how that will plan into the future.
As a Government, we have indicated our intentions over the next five years, which will give Police Scotland and the SPA greater certainty when planning their financial strategy. The other important piece of work that they are undertaking is on planning for future demands on the service. They will report on that by the summer of next year.
A combination of the draft budget that we have set out—it allows the bodies to plan for the forthcoming year and, potentially, for the next five years—and the piece of work that the SPA is undertaking on the future demands on the service and the nature of those demands will assist the SPA and Police Scotland in looking at what resources they need. That means not just financial resources but personnel resources and the way in which those resources are employed to meet the demand.
All those factors, together with the review of police governance that you set up in September, might mean that there is a need to review exactly where the police budget is going not necessarily next year but for the years of the next session of Parliament. Will you take that wider view on board?
The police governance review that I asked the new chair of the SPA to undertake will be completed by spring next year, alongside the work that the SPA will complete in the summer of next year on demands that the service will face over the next five to 10-year period. Those pieces of work will allow it to indicate clearly what it believes may be the financial and wider demands that will be placed on the service.
We will have to see what the outcome of those pieces of work is, but we have sought to provide as much assurance as we can—from this budget and for future budgets—about what the police budget will look like in future years. That gives the SPA and Police Scotland greater certainty in planning for those matters.
I will continue that line of questioning. On 18 December, Audit Scotland was very critical of the SPA’s accounts. It forecast the deficit that you have talked about in part, in referring to a recovery plan and other measures, and it expressed concern about incomplete records and poor financial management. Are you satisfied that that has been resolved in the SPA?
In addition to the points that I made to Rod Campbell about the differences between what is in the draft budget and the assumptions that Audit Scotland used, the SPA has assured me that it is taking action to ensure greater accuracy in its accountancy work. You may be aware that the SPA intends to appoint an interim chief financial officer to support that work over the coming months and to address the deficiencies that have been highlighted, which will ensure greater accuracy. The SPA is committed to addressing those issues and is taking action to do so.
Another criticism was about the lack of a long-term financial strategy, which was first called for in 2013. You stated that it was unrealistic to have a long-term strategy then, when so much had not been decided. We are now in 2016. You mentioned a recovery plan and said that a review is coming next year, but how confident can we be that either Police Scotland or the SPA will have a long-term financial strategy—a three to four-year strategy—in place?
We set out what we intend the resource budget for Police Scotland to be over the next five years to support it in undertaking such work. The fact that we have provided it with greater detail for the coming years will support it in that regard. It is already undertaking detailed work to plan for the forthcoming financial year on the back of the draft budget, which was published late not through our choice but as a result of the delay at Westminster. Setting out our intentions if we are re-elected for the next five years provides Police Scotland with more understanding of what its finances would look like over that period.
Is it fair to say that the long-term financial strategy is not in place for either Police Scotland or the SPA?
Police Scotland and the SPA are undertaking that work on the basis of the draft budget. They had a three-year strategy, which they took forward as part of their corporate strategy. As a result of the draft budget, they can now plan for the forthcoming financial year.
The fact that Audit Scotland first asked for a long-term financial strategy in 2013 and that we are now in 2016 but are still no closer to having one is something to reflect on.
We might be confusing a couple of different things. There was the outline business case. Are you referring to the financial strategy on its own or the full business case?
I was referring to the long-term financial strategy that Audit Scotland called for in 2013. I understand why you said that it was unrealistic to have one at that time, but we are now three years on from that and we still do not have it.
That is fine. I just wanted to make sure that we were not confusing two different things.
I was not confusing two different things.
One of the priorities that are listed for the justice portfolio is to
“work with national and local partners through our Building Safer Communities programme to reduce the number of victims of crime and unintentional injury. Our focus on prevention and early intervention will be targeted at addressing the underlying causes of crime and changing offending behaviour.”
One of those partners is Police Scotland. I notice that the budget for safer and stronger communities has been reduced dramatically in real terms and in cash terms. How does that fit with the priority that was listed?
Are you referring to table 8.10 in the budget?
I was looking at paper 3.
Does it show the level 3 funding breakdown?
Yes.
The drugs misuse element of that budget has been transferred to the health portfolio. I took the view that drug treatment is primarily not a criminal justice issue but a public health issue. To tackle it much more effectively and in a co-ordinated fashion, it is better if those resources are in the health portfolio, given that most of the work is undertaken by health agencies. The marked reduction that you see is a result of the transferring out of resource for drug treatment from the justice portfolio to the health portfolio, which will allow a more co-ordinated approach to be taken to drug and alcohol treatment.
That seems to assume that the vast majority—in fact, just about all—of the problems that are associated with ensuring safer communities are drug related, but we know that there are many reasons why communities feel under threat, such as antisocial behaviour at the lower end and threats from serious organised crime activity. Given the huge reduction in that budget, are you confident that there is sufficient resource to keep our communities safer from the wider threats that are undoubtedly out there?
The budget line is reducing because the money has been transferred out of justice and into health.
But that is just for drug issues.
It is for drug treatment. All the work that Police Scotland and other organisations do on enforcement, education and so on continues and will be supported. The money that we are discussing is specifically for drug treatment. That is a public health issue that is better placed in the health and wellbeing portfolio than in the justice portfolio, which is why the resource has been transferred.
So building safer communities is really just about preventing drug misuse, tackling the causes of drug taking and providing treatment, which are better in the health portfolio.
No. The money was ring fenced, and the justice portfolio gave it to health boards for the treatment of those who—
I presume that, if we go down to level 4 in this year’s budget, £33.2 million is being spent on drug treatment. The money has just gone out of the justice budget and into—
Yes. It has been transferred to the health portfolio because my view is that drug treatment is a public health matter that it is better to manage within health policy. The tackling of serious and organised crime that is associated with drugs and the drug prevention work that takes place in communities are mainstream stuff that Police Scotland undertakes, and that will continue as part of its normal day-to-day work. This money is specifically for drug treatment.
So there is nothing else that you are concerned about under the safer and stronger communities budget and there is no activity that might fall under it that is not sufficiently resourced. You are confident about that.
I am confident that, given that drug treatment is delivered at the local level largely by our health service and its partners, it is better suited to being dealt with as a public health issue.
I think that Margaret Mitchell’s point about the £7.1 million is to ask whether there has been any reduction to anything else that is done under that budget heading, and whether there is any transfer from any other projects.
No. This is purely—
I understand the point that you are making, but obviously there will be £7.1 million-worth of other things being done under that budget heading. Has there been any reduction to those other things?
There is a reduction in the work on sectarianism. The four-year programme that was put in place, and for which money was provided, has come to an end, so the level of resource that has been allocated to it has been reduced.
Beyond that, the marked reduction is the result of a transfer of resources and a change of approach that, as of the next financial year, will see health and wellbeing leading on drug treatment. As I said, I see that as a public health issue.
The UK Government has pledged to maintain the policing budget in real terms. The cabinet secretary has talked about protecting or maintaining the budget for front-line policing. Is that the same thing?
It is the same thing in real terms.
So, front-line policing is the whole budget.
It is the real-terms revenue budget.
Is it the same thing, though? “Front-line policing” seems to focus on police on the beat. What about support staff?
The resource budget that we allocate to the SPA for the purposes of delivering Police Scotland has real-terms protection.
So it is all-encompassing.
Yes—for the resource budget of the SPA, which goes to Police Scotland.
Okay. Thank you.
10:45
Margaret McDougall has indicated that her question has already been asked, so I will bring in Alison McInnes.
The Cabinet Secretary mentioned the outline business case that underpinned the whole reform. I disagree that the business case was credible—it made a number of unsubstantiated claims and set overoptimistic savings targets, so I ask you to agree that that view is held. The reform fund was supposed to finish at the end of the year, was it not?
It was, initially. In the financial memorandum that accompanied the legislation, the fund was for a three-year period.
Given that you have had to find £55 million for reform for the forthcoming year, do you acknowledge that your Government miscalculated the level of savings that the reforms could achieve in the timescale?
No.
So why have you allocated extra funding?
We have agreed that we have gone through the major consolidation part of the reform of the police service. The Deputy First Minister has agreed that we should, in order to support the next phase of reform, provide Police Scotland with more money to allow it to continue with some areas of reform.
Police Scotland has already achieved significant savings: cumulatively, up to 2025-26, it will make almost £880 million of savings. Savings have been addressed, and Police Scotland is already making further progress towards achieving the £1.1 billion that it was intended it would achieve as a result of savings.
Some of the earlier savings have been rushed and ill thought through. We need think only about control rooms, and the fact that we have had somewhat to put a brake on some of those reforms. Is that reflected in the £55 million?
In what sense?
I mean in the context of the view that you need to slow down reform in respect of control centres.
No. We have provided some additional resource in-year to assist Police Scotland in some of the challenges that it faces around the call-centre changes. The reform budget is not specifically for that particular aspect of the service—it is intended to give support to Police Scotland to allow it to identify, as it moves forward, the areas in which it wants to invest in order to operate more efficiently and effectively, and to identify where it can achieve savings.
How will you release that extra money? The Audit Scotland report to which other members have referred noted that greater transparency is needed with regard to how SPA and Police Scotland have used the reform funding so far. What assurance work have you done to review use of that earlier funding?
The SPA is undertaking work to ensure that the way in which reform money is used is delivering proper reform of the service. If Police Scotland identifies an area in which it wishes to undertake further reform and it needs some additional resource in-year to support that work, it can set out the case to the SPA. It is then for the SPA to consider thoroughly the details of such matters. At that point, the SPA can come to the Scottish Government to request access to the reform budget to support Police Scotland in undertaking that work.
I accept Alison McInnes’s underlying point regarding whether the reform budget is always delivering the level of reform that we would like. There is an opportunity for us to ensure that we are utilising the budget as effectively as possible to deliver reform in a way that improves the service overall. There is a process in place for Police Scotland to access that money, which will help to support transformation and reform of the service.
You have said that the money is not for any specific project, and that it is for the SPA to come forward with bids. However, you must have been able to quantify that money in some way. What have you taken into account in coming up with the figure of £55 million?
We have looked at some of the areas in which the police need to make further investment—particularly capital investment—in order to improve the way in which services operate. There is no doubt that ICT is one of the areas in which further investment would support Police Scotland by helping to reduce bureaucracy and promote greater efficiency, and by freeing up officers’ time, so we want to continue to provide Police Scotland with support in that area.
As you will be aware, the call-centre review that was undertaken by HMICS also highlighted issues with the ICT systems. In looking at how to improve things, Police Scotland has the opportunity to identify areas where capital investment in ICT provision would reform and improve the way in which the service operates. One of the big areas in which there can be further improvement is ICT.
The other aspect is that in-year demands that were not anticipated can come up. They may represent an opportunity for further investment at an early stage, which could realise improvements and allow us some flexibility to meet in-year demands that occur as a result of change in practice, or of particular issues being flagged up.
Can I have your assurance that community safety and the safety of the citizens of Scotland will be at the heart of any future efficiencies and that efficiencies will not be driven too fast and too deep?
That is absolutely crucial; it is central to reform. There should not be any doubt that the Government, the SPA and Police Scotland are signed up to making sure that our primary objective is the safety and the security of citizens in Scotland.
It is clear that lessons can be learned from how changes have been made in the past. The recommendation that a gateway review should have been undertaken prior to call-centre changes being progressed is a clear and concrete example of lessons that can be learned when aspects of the service are being changed. We need to make sure that such lessons are properly learned and implemented in the future. I give you an absolute assurance that we are committed to community safety. I am personally very committed to ensuring that Police Scotland and the SPA are also completely focused on it, as well as on ensuring that where we can learn from the past, we do so.
I will take a final question from Roderick Campbell before we move on to the fire service.
I have a couple of questions on the reform budget. When Deputy Chief Constable Richardson gave evidence, he talked about
“the initial phase of reform”
being about
“trying to maintain core services and to consolidate. That was the phase that brought various organisations into a single operating entity. The next stage of the journey is around what might be better understood as the really transformative activity, which involves changing processes and doing things differently—being slicker and sharper”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 December 2015; c 21.]
Do you agree with that comment? Is that something that we can look forward to seeing significant savings from over the next five years?
There is absolutely no doubt that over almost three years there has been significant consolidation of the different approaches of the eight previous forces. At one point, 18 different computer systems were being used by the forces for various aspects of the service, and some of those systems did not communicate with one another because the forces had taken different approaches to issues. Obviously, that has meant that there have been significant challenges in drawing things together. A very significant level of transformation has taken place already over the initial three-year period.
Deputy Chief Constable Richardson is correct in that there is an opportunity over the next couple of years to see further transformation that leads to more improvements for the public—improvements in how Police Scotland responds to public demand and public need, and improvements in data efficiency within the services.
To give an example, various parts of our public services procure in a wide range of areas. I have no doubt that greater collaboration within the public sector—collaboration is already happening, but it can be taken further—can support greater efficiency in procurement and co-operation in how changes are made.
Are you happy with the budgets for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and for HMICS, given the considerable roles that those organisations play?
PIRC is one of the elements within the police central Government budget, as well, We have, because of the changing demand that it has faced over recent times, provided this year an increase in the budget line that will support PIRC, for accommodation and for staffing levels. HMICS is broadly able to operate within the resource that it has at present; there has been no indication of any need there for an increase.
I invite members’ questions on the budget for the Fire and Rescue Service.
Good morning, cabinet secretary, and happy new year.
This year has been quite challenging for our emergency services. Some committee members have spent time in flooded areas, partly with firefighters, although the police were very much present as well. I have spent a lot of time with firefighters and with people from the fire service. Regarding the budget, one would think that police officers would be delighted with the latest response from the Scottish Government, because they have some reassurance not only about this year but for five years ahead. I do not think that we have that level of reassurance for the fire service.
Although the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service said in its submission that the suggested flat-cash budget settlement for 2016-17 “could be managed” by the fire service, it added that
“a cash reduction ... would be extremely challenging”
and could cause problems in the years to come. Are you confident that funding will be adequate for 2016-17 and have you got anything lined up for the years afterwards, similar to what you have lined up for the police service?
On the latter question, we will deal with the fire service budget in the next phase of the budget round. However, in relation to this financial year—2016-17—I believe that it is a manageable budget, and that we will continue to be able to make progress on reform of the SFRS. When Alasdair Hay—the chief officer—gave evidence, he said that a flat-cash budget settlement would be manageable: that is what we have delivered for the fire service in this financial year.
Having said that, I fully recognise that public sector organisations will find the situation challenging in general, given the overall squeeze on public sector budgets. That is why we need to be vigilant in making sure that we are achieving as much efficiency as we can in regard to how we progress reform in those organisations. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will be no different to any other part of the public sector in having to ensure that it is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible while delivering the best standard of service that it can to the people of Scotland.
It is fair to say that the way in which the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has operated over the past week or so, given the significant demands in the Borders and in the north-east, has been exemplary. The service has discharged its responsibility to a tremendously high standard and has been able to operate in a way that has allowed it to flex resources. That approach would have been more challenging in the previous set-up. As it is a national service, it has been able to move resources in a way that allows greater flexibility to meet demand in particular areas.
Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. In your draft budget, you talk about exploring opportunities for the fire service to make a wider contribution to public services. We heard from the Fire Brigades Union that discussions have taken place on widening the role of firefighters—in particular, in respect of medical emergencies, as is the case in some other countries. Can you expand on what you have in mind as part of that wider contribution? That would need additional funding.
11:00
The role of the fire service has been changing over a number of years in respect of the work in which it engages. For example, it has increasingly been involved in managing road traffic accidents and inland water rescues. The expansion of that role over a number of years is an example of how the service has evolved to meet the demands that are placed on it.
One area in which we are keen to see greater collaborative working is in work with the Scottish Ambulance Service. That is not about additional financial resource as such, but is about using the current resource slightly differently to respond to different things. For example, when I was the Minister for Public Health I was very keen to pursue the issue of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. We know that the statistics on survival rates from cardiac arrest greatly improve if we can get to the patient as quickly as possible people who are properly trained and have a defibrillator. The services in Seattle in America are the gold standard internationally in that regard. Responding to cardiac arrest incidents much more quickly by getting someone there with a defibrillator can improve patient survival rates. We are, on the back of a strategy that I initiated as Minister for Public Health, running pilots and working with the local fire service in three areas to see how they can assist the Scottish Ambulance Service in responding to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
That is not about taking firefighters away from their normal duties; it means that if a fire appliance with a defibrillator is available and can reach more quickly than an ambulance can an individual who has had a cardiac arrest, that resource will be deployed. The pilots are looking to close gaps and maximise use of existing resources. That type of collaborative work has a benefit for the public and makes much better use of our public sector resources to meet demands and needs.
I understand all that, but a question remains. You said earlier that you moved some resources to the national health service for very good reasons. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is aware of how the scope of what firefighters do can be enlarged, which might mean moving resources from the national health service to the Fire and Rescue Service. I think that we could discuss an extra level of funding coming not from your portfolio, cabinet secretary, but from that of another cabinet secretary. That aspect needs to be explored.
That sounded like a pitch for money to come to justice from health. We need to see how the three pilots progress and then evaluate them to understand whether they have any marked resource implications. If so, we can explore that. However, the reality is that all the money that is allocated to different portfolios comes from the same pot. If we want the pilots to deliver better outcomes for the public, we have a collective responsibility to ensure that we work across Government portfolios to utilise the resource as effectively as possible to deliver the best possible services. I cannot remember exactly where the three pilots are.
There is one in the Borders.
As ever, there is one in the Borders.
The others are in Aberdeenshire and Dundee.
Those are the three areas where we are trialling the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest service, which we will eventually evaluate.
The pilots are very good work. However, the additional funding for them could have an impact on the number of firefighters available, particularly in rural communities that have been affected by flooding, for example. It would be reassuring and important to include that funding in future budgets.
We talked about VAT earlier. We have been told that, if the VAT was returned to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it could fund 350 additional firefighters. If the VAT money is not returned, I ask you to consider how we can ensure in the next budget that we maintain the level of firefighters that we need for emergency services.
I understand the comment and the point that you are making. I am mindful of the fact that, even with the pilots, we cannot have the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service undertaking additional responsibilities that result in a negative impact on its core responsibilities. While ensuring that the service continues to deliver its core responsibilities, we are considering whether there is scope to utilise highly trained firefighters and the resources that are deployed across our communities more effectively to support greater community safety and community cohesion. Let us explore whether we can use that resource more effectively to help to deliver that. The out-of-hospital cardiac arrest pilots are a practical example of our moving into that area. They could have a significant impact in helping to save lives and promoting community safety.
It is worth keeping in mind that the fire service now undertakes a significant level of community safety work, such as visiting properties to install smoke detectors. That is a big and detailed part of the service’s prevention work and it has resulted in the reductions that we have seen in fire fatalities. The fire service no longer works on the basis of just going to fight fires; it is also about prevention and reducing the risk.
When firefighters go into an elderly person’s house to do a fire assessment and to look at smoke detectors, they can also look at trip risks, for example. If an elderly person falls at home, they can injure themselves—they could fracture their hip or something like that. From my previous profession, I know that someone can be managing fine at home, but if they fracture their hip and go into hospital and then need a hip replacement, their mobility might never recover and they could end up having complications while in hospital. Sadly, that can result in a downward spiral in that person’s independence. While firefighters are in somebody’s house, they could identify other issues and refer those on to another agency that can pick them up. It is about trying to maximise the use of the resource and their skills as best we can to support some of those community safety measures.
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
Happy new year to you, cabinet secretary.
In relation to the rationalisation of control rooms, the submission from the Fire Brigades Union argued for additional resources to ensure successful delivery of what it described as “a high risk project”. It raised concerns about having fewer staff covering a wider geographic area and the loss of local knowledge. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that problems do not arise?
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has undertaken a significant level of work and planning around the move to the three-control-room model, with control rooms in Edinburgh, Johnstone and Dundee. The programme will be completed and delivered by 2017. Part of the work has already been taken forward. The control room in Dumfries transferred to Johnstone in November last year, and the control room in Edinburgh has already been upgraded and enhanced—that work was completed in November. The Maddiston control room will merge with the control room in Edinburgh on a phased basis during January. That is due to be completed by the end of January, and the merger of the Thornton control room will then follow over the next couple of months.
The fire service has taken a range of measures to try to reduce the risk of problems arising with its control rooms. For example, it has had shadow systems running to ensure that there is resilience and that the new approach works effectively and efficiently. Progress to date has indicated that that has been managed. The work has been planned for a considerable period and is being implemented over a period to ensure that the public continue to receive the quality of service that they expect.
One of the concerns that the union raised was that training and evaluation might be compromised as part of the rationalisation. Can you assure me today that that has been addressed?
My understanding is that all staff in the control rooms are trained for the purposes of managing the system and that that is part of the on-going work that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been taking forward. I have had no direct indications from the part of the transfer that has taken place that there have been any issues with the training of staff, but part of the on-going work as the transfer takes place is the continued training of staff in operating the system.
You think that the resources are adequate to carry out that training.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has already been taking it forward. It is not something that it is about to start; it is part of the work that it is already undertaking with some of the control rooms. As I mentioned, the transfer of the Dumfries control room to Johnstone has taken place, and the Maddiston and Edinburgh work is moving forward. The service has already demonstrated that transfers can be managed effectively and efficiently and that staff are being properly trained.
It is worth bearing in mind that the volume of calls that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service deals with is different from that of the Scottish police service. The other difference between the call centres is that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service deals only with 999 calls and does not have an equivalent to 101 calls, whereas Police Scotland has both 101 and 999 calls. The volumes and some of the complications are therefore significantly different.
However, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has already been managing the service and the transfer effectively and there is no indication that problems are anticipated.
Thank you.
Before we move on to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, can you explain why the Scottish Government assists the SPA with its VAT liability but does not assist the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service VAT liability is met within its resource budget. It was agreed with the service previously that it would meet that cost from within its on-going resource budget, and we have made the same provision in this financial settlement.
The number of fires that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service attended to last year was down by 11 per cent. Do we have the right number of firefighters? The number has been reduced over the past few years. Do you have any comments on the issue in general and on whether the budget provides for enough firefighters?
The resource configuration for firefighters is a process that is taken forward between the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union. I know that there are some issues, for example in the north-east. It is not so much that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service does not have enough firefighters; it is just that it does not have enough of them in some parts of the country. Globally, it has the right numbers, but they are not necessarily all in the right places.
An interim arrangement has been in place with the FBU to allow the service to move some firefighters to other areas in order to help where there may have been some gaps in the numbers, and the service is working with the FBU on a resource allocation model that will help to ensure that it has sustainable numbers across the country.
We need to ensure that we have the right firefighters in the right places to meet the demand. A large part of the country is covered by retained firefighters, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is undertaking work to revisit the approach and the way in which it utilises and provides retained cover so that it can meet demand in future years. That is a significant piece of work that is being undertaken. The chief fire officer has said on a number of occasions that he wants to ensure that the service is more suited to the types of demands that are placed on it in rural communities today.
11:15
I ask for volunteers for questions on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I also indicate that, in five minutes, we will overrun this evidence-taking session, so I ask for concise questions and answers if at all possible.
Cabinet secretary, we have growing confidence in the criminal justice system—the police service and the prosecution service—which has seen a great number of historical sexual abuse cases come to light. There is an increased number of solemn cases, domestic cases are being prioritised and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has an increased role in relation to victims. We have heard from Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prosecution in Scotland about the challenges that are faced, and the FDA union talks about the pressures that prosecution staff face and states:
“We do not consider it to be reasonable or achievable to continue to expect the service to deliver more with less.”
We will shortly take evidence from you on more legislation, which will create more work. I am aware of the alternatives to prosecution—the fiscal fines and other direct measures—that are in place, but are the level of budget and the increased workload that is coming the service’s way sustainable?
You are right to say that there is growing confidence among certain groups of victims about reporting certain crimes. That is a reflection of the significant change in the approach that our police service now takes to some of those issues. For example, if one individual reports domestic violence, the police will look for previous partners to determine whether there was domestic violence in the past, which can result in a number of victims having cases brought before the court. That has clearly created pressures on the court system because, due to the nature of such offences, early pleas are not often entered, which results in the cases going to trial.
We have recognised that situation. Therefore, in 2014-15, we provided additional resource of £1.47 million to help to support the courts, the prosecution service and the judiciary in meeting some of the additional demands that they faced in-year. In this financial year, we have provided an additional £2.4 million to support further work for the prosecution service and our courts to meet the additional demand. Therefore, over the past two years alone, we have provided almost £4 million of additional resource to help to meet some of the in-year demands that the courts experience.
Our prosecution service is like any other part of our public services in that it has to operate within the budget that is set for it. I am confident that it will be able to manage that effectively. How the service takes that forward is a matter for the Lord Advocate, as it is independent of Government. However, I am confident that it will manage within the budget that has been set for it. We will continue to monitor such matters through the justice board to consider any changes in demand that are experienced in-year and how we get agencies to work together much more effectively to offset the challenges that they face and so that much more co-operation takes place.
The fact remains that there has been a fall in the real-terms and cash-terms budgetary provision for case-related work and a real-terms fall in the overall budget for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. If the Scottish Government legislates on issues such as domestic abuse and human trafficking, which we all welcome, is it not only fair and reasonable—in fact, vital—that the people who are at the sharp end of delivering the consequences of that legislation be adequately resourced to carry out the work and ensure that the policy is a success?
As you will be aware, with any piece of legislation we publish a financial memorandum that sets out the anticipated financial implications of that legislation. For example, we have set out the financial implications of the bill that we will discuss later this morning, including the likely levels of prosecutions and cases that could end up in the courts over the course of a year. We look to provide resource to meet such needs when we introduce legislation. It would be wrong to give the impression that when we introduce legislation that makes additional provisions in our criminal justice system we do not provide additional resource to meet some of those demands.
Nobody is disputing that you do that, but a greater volume of complex and serious cases has materialised. Catherine Dyer said, quite reasonably, that the prosecution service is coping—but only just. The FDA is saying that it is unreasonable to expect its members to do so much more and deal with those more complex cases with less.
That is why, over the past two years, we have provided additional resource to support both the COPFS and the courts in dealing with some of those increasingly complex cases. I know that, for example, historical abuse cases involve complex, detailed matters that can require a significant level of investigation by the COPFS, which is why we have provided in-year additional resource, to meet some of the additional demands that it is facing. We have also provided additional resource to the courts, in order to deal with the additional demand that they face as a result of those cases being brought before them.
So despite the reports that we have seen about staff morale and people in the COPFS being under intolerable strain, et cetera, you would contend that the service is adequately resourced.
I am confident that it will be able to operate within the budget that the Lord Advocate has agreed. It will take that forward based on how it believes that can best be achieved in the service.
I am always keen to ensure that all the parts of our justice system operate collectively as best they can. I am always conscious that a change to one part of the system will impact on another. We try to ensure that we have greater planning on these matters, which is what the justice board does with its work to help collaboration on such issues.
If you were to ask any part of the public sector whether it would like more money, I have no doubt that it would say yes. I suspect that there are not many cabinet secretaries who would not want more money in their portfolio, either. As you are aware, it is the Lord Advocate rather than me who negotiates this budget with Deputy First Minister. I am confident that the COPFS will be able to manage within the budget that has been set for it. As you pointed out, it is a flat cash settlement.
I am quite sure that all public services would warmly welcome more money and even argue that they need it, but the point is that the COPFS has been at the cutting edge of Government priorities on domestic abuse and trafficking cases. We welcome that, but my question was about the extent to which cognisance had been taken of that and its impact on the service. However, I do not think that we are going to get much further with that line of questioning.
For the prosecution service to work efficiently, other elements of the justice system must be adequately resourced. However, there is a 7 per cent cash-terms reduction in legal aid, which will undoubtedly impact on the work of defence lawyers who are funded through the legal aid system. How will that reduction be managed so that it does not have a negative impact on the justice system?
We have sought not to take the approach that has been taken in England and Wales on restricting access to legal aid by reducing provision in, for example, civil matters. We want to maintain the level of access to legal aid provision in Scotland as much as we can. We are working to make sure that those who are eligible for legal aid get access to it. We need to make sure that the system is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are already looking at how we can model the way in which some parts of our courts system are operating to make sure that they are doing so as efficiently and effectively as possible. Some of the delays and other challenges around the way in which they are operating incur significant costs, which relate to some aspects of legal aid.
In working with the legal profession and others within the justice board we will make sure that the legal aid system is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are looking at how we can adjust and adapt some aspects of our justice system to make sure that they are operating as efficiently and effectively as possible, given the consequences that delays can have, such as incurring costs for areas such as legal aid provision.
Do you have an example of that?
It is an area of work that we are actively taking forward at present. When we have more detail we will no doubt provide it to the committee.
I think that the committee would warmly welcome further detail.
I want to return to the additional resources that you have provided over the past two years. I think that you referred to £1.7 million in 2014-15.
It was £1.47 million.
It rose to £4 million over the two years. Increasing resources were required in-year and delivered on a sort of ad hoc basis. Do you agree that, if resources on that scale are required again in this forthcoming year, it will be important to review the base budget? When you provide in-year resources you apply a temporary sticking plaster; it does not allow specialist professionals who can work over the period to be brought in.
It is worth keeping in mind that although we are discussing the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s budget, the additional resource was not purely for it; it was for different parts of the portfolio. Some of it went to support the Scottish Court Service in undertaking work and providing additional capacity. That came about as a result of the partnership that we have through the justice board whereby people flagged up that they were experiencing pressures as a result of another aspect of the system taking a different approach. The additional resource was to offer flexibility. Any further changes can be reflected on in the budget process for 2017-18. We will continue to be alive to circumstances where we feel that there is a need to have flexibility to provide support where we can reasonably do so.
The justice board approach is interesting and it provides a useful way to join things up. Does the board have access to a change fund?
It does not have a specific budget that it is responsible for allocating directly. The reducing reoffending change fund has been used over several years to improve how we deal with issues with reoffending. The board is more about collaborating to look at where different aspects of the system can work more effectively. Different people, from reporters in the children’s hearings system right through to the chief constable and senior officers and senior figures in the judiciary, the Crown Office and the justice directorate are all working collaboratively to try to make sure that we are as joined up as we can be. In the past, there has been a tendency for different bits of the justice system to operate in a certain way without recognising the impact that that can have on other bits of the system. The justice board’s responsibility is to bring them together more effectively.
That is helpful. Thanks.
Margaret McDougall has indicated that her question has been asked, but Roderick Campbell has another question.
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates. The legal aid budget is under pressure. Are people’s concerns that that might lead to a reduction in the grants of criminal legal aid justified?
Do you mean for individual cases?
Yes.
The purpose is to maintain access to legal aid as it is at present, across our legal aid provisions. We want to achieve greater efficiency in the way in which it is operating.
Given that we will have a longish session for our next item of business, I propose that we take a five-minute break to stretch our legs.
11:30 Meeting suspended.